But learn your settings and yes it will take a few days as the menu is deep.

For base I on the em1 with the oly primes, especially the 75, I use sat. 0 to +1, Sharpness 0 to -1, noise reduction zero (up to 1000 iso), graduation low key and set the curves to open the shadows and hold the highlights, underexpose 1/3 stop at most and calibrate this with your evf and computer so they match and adjust for the -1/3 stop.

Also set the evf in color and tone to match your computer and buried in the menu is a color wheel to set the look, do some adjustments on white balance and a set of warm cards for video are a good way to set a different wb look.

As will all digital a uv filter helps a lot for flash.

BC

P.S.

With lenses the oly primes are ultra sharp and crisp (think zeiss), the panasonic constant zooms are sharp with a softer roll off, (the pana Leica 35 is sharp with a slight smoothness) if you use leica m mount lenses get a very good adapter like the metabones or a few others, but don't scrimp on adapters.

The oly standard 43 lenses are beautiful, but very expensive for this format and only work well with the em1.

Not crappy color, color of the moment, color as guide like a instant film (and not an instigram film).

I've always said how cool would it be to have knobs on your camera and make the film you wanted in the camera. Now we can do it and see it as we frame and shoot.

This doesn't make it easier or take the skill away, this allows the photographer to see design what they're shooting in regards color, tone, composition and lens.

Isn't that total control?

The 1ds3 you use shoots pretty color, but it's global and it's limited until you go through layers and layers of post at least with the gazzilion images I shot with those cameras.

With the em-1 you set your look and use the jpeg as your guide.

To me this is an amazing plus, but not crappy color, but a specific film, just the film you can see until your ready to present.

Everybody that doesn't like evfs finds fault and I'm saying with the em1, there are four advantages. The ability to see "your" film look, adjustable formats from 4:3 to 16:9, a refresh rate that has less blackout than and ovf and the ability to view a huge viewfinder and manually focus a lens and in light and dark even without the magnifying setting.

When was the last time we could do that?

This is as Nikon says, puts the photograph back in the hands of the photographer, literally.

In regards to pixels, frame size, whatever . . . well I've explained it and except for two lenses I'd like in the 43 system most is more than covered, from f.95 manually focus, to 400mm equivalent primes.

The downside is small, but no I don't see this camera as good enough, just the opposite and when I combine the olympus with the pana gh3's, there is little you can't do in modern imaging at bargain prices compared to where we were just a few years ago.

Once again, I really am not dissing the Sony A7 (know nothing about the R), but I'll bet few people tested the em1 next to the A7, from shoot to final post production.

If they did I bet they'd see things differently.

IMO

BC

P.S. I'll agree 50% that some editorial and commercial photography is c__p and the new economic new has knocked the poot out of production, but I also see some beautiful imagery and the thing I like is it's not all normal or safe, or just post production effects.

There is a new look of believable but unique, a combination of planned real and I like it, in fact I like it a lot.

When life throws you lemons, make lemonade. Or as you would say a Lemon Pressee.

The Mr.X bit is an in joke - think of it as standing in for "The Artist who wishes to be called Cooter".

You and Dave do make some interesting points about the EVF - essentially you use it to preview the shot with the color and curves dialed in - it becomes a creative polaroid. And of course video is not something you will do with a 1Ds3.

However, I am curious about how well the actual *still images* compare between the full frame Canon and its fast lenses and the 43 device. Because after all everyone was in love with the *idea* of all those 36 luscious megapixels of Sony sensor, and now suddenly they are talking not file quality but preview convenience.

And BTW, I don't say the 1Ds3 is a marvel, it's just the "old" 35mm state of the art, and Cooter and Associates used to shoot it.

Edmund

Hi Edmund

forgetting the video for a moment, I tend to shoot my GH2's in raw capture and often use them alongside my 1Ds3, therefore I prefer to do my colour balance etc in Lightroom after the shoot so that I can get an overall look to the whole set (this mainly for weddings). In general use the M43 pictures are excellent - I could post a few here if you like. Are they equal to the Canon files with the best Canon lenses? No. But they are very good. Remember that my Panasonics are three years old so not the equal of the cameras under discussion. The dynamic range in my cameras is not as good as the Canon. The only reason I have not yet upgraded to the GH3 is money. However I much prefer the feel and idea of the EM-1 to the GH3, as long as the video is adequate - which according to Cooter the GH still trumps the Oly. To be fair I don't think the Olympus is targeted at video in the way the Panasonic is.

Its all compromises with cameras isn't it. IF you like manual focus lenses, the M43 are way ahead of the Canon (excluding live view of course). Low light seeing and manual focussing particularly are a joy!This year I spent so much time shooting with EVF that I suddenly realised my brain and momentarily forgotten how to 'see' with the optical finder in the Canon. I forgot to mentally adjust exposure because in the EVF it is shown. I use the GH2 with the rear LCD folded closed and the instant review in the EVF set to 'off'. Then, if I need to review a picture I just press the review button and the picture appears in the EVF - without taking the camera away from my eye. I can be talking to the subject with my left eye while reviewing a picture with my right. The continuity is not broken.

With M43 I love the small size, I love the tiny compact lenses, and I love the discreetness - not toting a massive camera around and being able to blend into the background. I do not like the ergonomics an tiny buttons on the GH2, I am always accidentally pressing something - it is just not a professional tool. Which is why I am very tempted by the new Olympus.

I have to admit that I do still love my 1Ds3. The picture quality of course is superb. But mostly as a tool it just works. After six years and many hundreds of thousands of pictures it feels like an extension of my brain (except after using the M43 and forgetting how to use the viewfinder!). It is impossible to accidentally press anything, and I can use it instinctively. Which is why for shooting location portraits it is still my favourite - paired with either an 85mm 1.8, or Zeiss 50mm f2. But I would love to have a similar camera in the size of the Olympus - I can accept the EVF - in fact I embrace the EVF.

Finally, and again forgetting video, I do prefer the experience of seeing through an optical finder. But the advantages of the EVF are so great I honestly cannot see many manufacturers not going over to it very soon. Why would you want one of the bottom-end Canons with its tiny OVF when you could have a big bright EVF with all it's advantages.

For years I used a M43 with EVF as a see-in-the-dark tool to evaluate dark and dangerous ruins before going in and making images with heavy and bulky medium format cameras. Now I can do both with the M240.

I have to admit that I do still love my 1Ds3. The picture quality of course is superb. But mostly as a tool it just works. After six years and many hundreds of thousands of pictures it feels like an extension of my brain (except after using the M43 and forgetting how to use the viewfinder!). It is impossible to accidentally press anything, and I can use it instinctively. Which is why for shooting location portraits it is still my favourite - paired with either an 85mm 1.8, or Zeiss 50mm f2. But I would love to have a similar camera in the size of the Olympus - I can accept the EVF - in fact I embrace the EVF.

Jim

jim the gh3 though kind of a mini 5d2 is more intuitive to me than a 1d series and I've owned every 1d and 1ds/x series made. If only it shot the stills of the olympus, but if only the olympus shot the video of the gh3. At least they use the same lens mount.

The Olympus, give yourself 4 days to figure it out, because out of the can it's not perfect the menu is so deep and doesn't return to the last setting, that you need a note pad and patience.

Once set yo've built your own fillm(s).

Edmund,

Your spiking the Lemonade again or just doing the Edumund causes trouble deal. I never know with your French guys.

Your talking about a camera that turns everyone into a human blade runner clone and I'm talking about a camera that I can make an analog film look.

jim the gh3 though kind of a mini 5d2 is more intuitive to me than a 1d series and I've owned every 1d and 1ds/x series made. If only it shot the stills of the olympus, but if only the olympus shot the video of the gh3. At least they use the same lens mount.

Interesting - I obviously need lots of money - and time to learn new cameras! Actually work is picking up quite well at the moment - I've only had two whole days off in two months, though it is our busy period, so a new camera/s is on the cards. Sounds like a GH3 on one shoulder and a EM-1 on the other - but then that is a good way to confuse the brain.

BC - I am not a demanding video user - that is I am quite low on the learning scale compared to my skill in stills. While the GH3 is of course better than an EM for video, is the EM in any way comparable to the GH2. I'm wondering if I would take a big hit on video quality by going the Olympus route. I know in an ideal world I would get both to try for a week. However it is my experience that becoming really proficient with a camera can often outweigh any technical shortcomings it has. One particular thing a GH can do is shoot a RAW still part way through a video clip - can the Olympus do that as far as you know. It is a feature I use quite often at weddings.

I want to take the plunge this year and leave the Canon at home for weddings - and although the GH2 is fine for 80% I think the Canon is still needed with my current set-up. At the moment I am often slinging three cameras round my neck - GH2 with 25mm Nokton, GH2 with 14mm pancake, and 1Ds3 with 85mm. I'm getting older too!

This is closer to your style of shooting. I see no evidence of shutter blur and do see some decent tones.

Perhaps you could give the A7R a try some time?

That snap is with fast duration flash, s__t you can shoot it at 1/2 a second and slap the lens and it would be sharp.

Try it at 100th of a second with continuous lights, or put a fifty on at a 60th hand held, the A7 becomes a different camera.

it's not just the slap, you can use a tripod, it's just the package. The Sony viewfinder is very tv looking with jagged lines and some other strangeness like slower focus in stills, no touch screen autofocus in motion and right now to get to fast lenses you've gotta go to A mounts which somewhat negates the size factor and to a lot of extent the cost factor.

It's not the A7 that is that far off, it's just doesn't give me anything I dont have and unless Sony release some kind of new roadmap with e mount 4k video, fast lenses.

Basically, it's hard to fathom that a 43 sensor will perform like it does, but I use it, it does, it offers cross use from motion to stills and the lens set is very, very good.

I doubt seriously if the way the A7 is positioned it will be really tested against an olympus or a panasonic.

It may take two makers,but combining panasonic's video and olympus stills there is not a lot left to be desired for a hand camera, at least in what I shoot.

I still have and use the Canons, my medium format cameras, the RED's so I'm covered on the large end, but the small cameras have a lot of use in small spaces, fast production.

The one thing that some people miss when comparing all these little cameras is the 43 system has a 4:3 format which is great in vertical, interesting in horizontal, but I'm not selling cameras, just using them.

One thing about the A7, the shutter slap (should there be any slap on a non mirror camera?) is not the end of the world, but until you've seen that crazy olympus stabilization that will let you shoot a static subject, at 1/6 th of a second you won't believe it. (If I could only get talent to hold still st a/6th of a second).

I really think it's best if people decide for themselves. It takes a lot of set up time with these electronic cameras, especially find the sweet spot on iso and noise/sharpness but once you find it, it's very good.

Good enough that I can use them for complete production and not worry about the larger cameras if I so chose.

IMO

BC

P.S. After a lot of frames, the olympus em-5 at 1000 iso is more pleasing to me than the em-1, though the em-1 is a slightly better camera, especially for track focus. For video the gh3 is head and shoulders above anything under $10,000.

If your going to test the A7 with a thought of buying, do yourself a favor and try the em1.

Michael has a good write up about it and I agree with most of what he says, especially in usability and build quality.

Though the setup is electronic heavy in set up (don't expect to turn it on and shoot the best or prettiest file ever).

Even if the Sony A7 shot the same quality file (which I don't believe it did in my tests), if you shoot the em-1, then then sony, then the em-1 and asked the price, you'd expect the em-1 to costs more rather than less.

You won't understand the build quality until you compare the feel.

Michael made a point of saying the camera is built by people who understand photography and I agree. It's the most personally customizable camera I've ever used and it's cool to look at an lcd and see the film you expect to see, rather than something you know your going to have to mess with in post to get to a base look.

The only thing I don't like is olympus needs a very fast 100mm lens I'd say f2 at the least. They do have a standard 43 lens that's a 150mm f2 and it focuses well with the em-1 but not to the level of the micro 43 lenses.

The one other thing I don't think Michael mentioned was how you can autofocus it, because the viewfinder is so large and detailed. I'll throw on a Leica or a voght and hit focus even on moving subject most of the time. I've never been able to do that with a digital dslr.

The one leap is to get your head out of the frame size. I know it makes no sense given our constant market barrage of larger sensor sizes, more megapixels, but those mean nothing if the image isn't sharp, or the camera keeps you from getting the shot.

I think it's the most underrated camera sold and if it only tethered I could carry a lot less equipment.

My only other suggestion is to stay with primes. Olympus 12, 17, 47 and 75 are very good, the pana lecia 25 great with a new 50mm 1.2 leica on the way.

If your going to test the A7 with a thought of buying, do yourself a favor and try the em1. Michael has a good write up about it and I agree with most of what he says, especially in usability and build quality...

Good recommendations and pragmatic words of advice, but there is a BUT

BC speaks from the viewpoint of someone who, by his own admission, now concentrates and has moved towards motion as a distinguishing quality of his business - autofocus, tracking, stabilisation, colour, in-camera corrections and extensability are all important. M43 sensor size is little different from the sensors he's using for motion.

For someone who, like myself, does mainly B&W, stills only, prefers manual focus, has a host of top-grade legacy glass (that he's not willing to discard) and who values focus peaking and tethering the way BC values AF speed and tracking there is a 'dilemma'.

For reasons I still can't fathom, m43's don't suit 'adapted' lenses. I haven't tested M-glass on the OM-1 (BC has) but did on the Panasonic GH2. The results weren't even in the same ball park.

I suspect that all non-native lenses, either primes or zooms, will give poor(er) results on bodies that use an AA filter. It's not just ray angle, exit pupils et al. It's probably what the OLPF does. Cameras that are are OLPF free have consistently given better results – there are reports both on this site and elsewhere that QED this**. Doesn't mean that there won't be issues with corner resolution, smearing etc – there may well be. It's a question of degree. I suspect this is the main difference between the m43 OMs , Panasonics et al v the Fuji (and other) AA-less CSC's - without discussing high ISO and file quality.

The problem investing today in m43, is twofold. The lenses are good, very good. They're also expensive. But you're buying and committing to that format for the foreseeable future. The lenses are not adaptable, at least not to APS-C and FF. That's an expensive gamble - 35mm (ff) lenses and up, with the arrival of the mirrorless, game changing CSC's - potentially are.

(note to BC : would you be as keen on a Leica S2 if your legacy glass wasn't adaptable to it ?)

I have tested Leica M-glass on the Fuji x-trans, and the results were stellar. I've also used an 85/1.4 with the Metabones SpeedBooster for a quick test. With focus peaking, I nailed focus on the eyes from 6ft away in an instant - there was minimal dof. I've never done that before.

Regarding build quality, there is a big difference between the A7 and the A7r. File quality - I suspect the 'r' version is similar to the D800e, given that they have the same sensor, although different electronics and despite Sony's suspect RAW compression.

I don't know if the OM has focus peaking, but I tried the SONY for a few seconds and it's without doubt the best focus peaking implementation I've yet seen. Enough to persuade me to order the camera, virtually unseen.

Yes, the shutter shake issue is a pain. But to put it in perspective, it's still less than the D800 and I hope that just like Canon, with the 5D's, the initial problems will be resolved with a firmware fix.

So in favour of the SONY, I would suggest that anyone who values 36MP, IQ, focus peaking, (tethering) and future interoperability – there's still a decision to be made. (And no, I haven't made it yet - the box is still unopened ..)

Panasonic, like peers Fujifilm Holdings and Olympus Corp, has been losing money on its cameras [..]A 40 percent drop in Panasonic's overall camera sales in April-September left the imaging division vulnerable as the company's mid-term plan to March 2016 demands unprofitable businesses turn themselves around or face the axe. "If you look mid-to-long term, digital camera makers are slipping and the market is becoming an oligopoly," said Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida.

Panasonic held 3.1 percent of the camera market in July-September, down from 3.8 percent a year earlier, according to IDC. Canon Inc, Nikon Corp and Sony Corp controlled over 60 percent between them. "Only those who have a strong brand and are competitive on price will last - and only Canon, Nikon and Sony fulfil that criteria," added Yoshida.

For reasons I still can't fathom, m43's don't suit 'adapted' lenses. I haven't tested M-glass on the OM-1 (BC has) but did on the Panasonic GH2. The results weren't even in the same ball park.

Having used loads of "legacy/adapted" lenses on my m43 cameras (and I do mean loads...100+), I think the reason why some (certainly not all) of those lenses deliver ugh performance is pretty clear: high photosite density in a small imaging area. Optical limitations—in particular, with M lenses, the oblique angles of incidence issue—are exposed. Put the same lenses in front of a 60mp or so "full frame" sensor and I suspect the results will be similarly brutal.

(With wider M lenses you might think a 17.3x13mm sensor would minimize off-axis degradation, but I don't find this to be the case. "Off axis" begins in earnest just millimeters away from the image center.)

Quote

I suspect that all non-native lenses, either primes or zooms, will give poor(er) results on bodies that use an AA filter. It's not just ray angle, exit pupils et al. It's probably what the OLPF does. Cameras that are are OLPF free have consistently given better results – there are reports both on this site and elsewhere that QED this**. Doesn't mean that there won't be issues with corner resolution, smearing etc – there may well be. It's a question of degree. I suspect this is the main difference between the m43 OMs, Panasonics et al v the Fuji (and other) AA-less CSC's - without discussing high ISO and file quality.

Actually both the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GX7 are AA filter free. As far as I can tell this makes no difference in adapted lens performance. Also, the character of my various M lenses is the same on my Fuji X-E1 and Epson R-D1. The Fuji has no AA filter while the Epson does. The difference in photosite count (16 vs. 6) between those two APS-C cameras doesn't seem to matter either. Neither camera's sensor has sufficient photosite density to expose the lenses to the degree the m43 cameras do.

Quote

The problem investing today in m43, is twofold. The lenses are good, very good. They're also expensive. But you're buying and committing to that format for the foreseeable future. The lenses are not adaptable, at least not to APS-C and FF. That's an expensive gamble - 35mm (ff) lenses and up, with the arrival of the mirrorless, game changing CSC's - potentially are.

This is true assuming one views buying photo gear as an investment. I realize many people do. I don't. When it comes to cameras & formats I'm a serial polygamist. I love to try different stuff! It's kinda like guitars...every guitar has at least one good song in it. IMO every camera & lens has at least one creatively valid photograph in it. This means I sometimes buy stuff that has minimal-to-no resale value. That's okay...goes with the approach. And I tend to keep lenses regardless. You never know when some tech development might put a defunct/sidelined mount back into play. (I continue to hope someone will make a rear optical cell/adapter for Contaflex lenses, though I'm hardly holding my breath.) So if m43 doesn't make it long-term? Doesn't matter to me...I'm enjoying it now.

Given that no-one can foresee the future (sometimes people make lucky guesses, of course), the direction(s) photo tech will take even in the near term is/are unknown. I'm personally rooting for something game-changing...the current near-stasis of Canikon domination is boring as hell.

there is the OM-D line of cameras which has several models E-M5, E-M1 and based on the name registration E-M10... I know that you know, but it helps to pay respect to the names... E-M1 has focus peaking and it stabilizes the image when you are focusing - that helps a lot w/ longer lenses.

it is not 17.3x13mm sensor... you can see some actual spec's from manufacturers for 43/m43 sensors and 2x crop is a myth as well as 4 times lesser imaging area... it is 3.7 lesser imaging area and bigger crop and that is if you actually believe that FF gets the data from 36x24mm (instead of it being just the sensor size w/ a smaller imaging area)

BC, I'm planning to test the A7r, not the A7. Frankly speaking, I am more interested in Sony's A mount cams. Let's see what they have in store for next year. There are some lovely rendering lenses in the A mount lineup like the 135 Zeiss.

I understand that the EM1 is a fine little camera, but M4/3 just doesn't do it for me. Apart from the 4:3 aspect ratio, I don't really like them at all. I've tried an EM5, a GH2 and a GH3 and went back to APSC and 4:3 cropping for my secondary camera. It's a personal thing, I guess.

Another thing is that Olympus menus make me wanna throw something heavy at a wall.